gameofthronesfandomcom-20200223-history
User talk:Ser Hasty
Books vs TV series This is a wiki devoted to the TV series. Moon tea hasn't been established in the TV series yet.--The Dragon Demands (talk) 06:09, October 18, 2014 (UTC) Grammar "Lady Whent is the first of the people who govern Harrenhal since the beginning of the series and come to a horrific end, presumably due to the alleged curse that is believed to cause the destruction of all the houses which hold the castle and the individuals who serve as its castellan." This entry you made has several problems -- "and come to a horrific end" isn't grammar agreement, it should be "who" come to a horrific end. It is very disjointed.--The Dragon Demands (talk) 06:12, October 18, 2014 (UTC) Articles You are correct, but why not simply change the word "and" to "who" instead of deleting the whole paragraph? Ser Hasty (talk) 06:19, October 18, 2014 (UTC) Well, so you can write it up again better.--The Dragon Demands (talk) 06:33, October 18, 2014 (UTC) We don't have articles on objects like "Necklace"; you could reincorporate this into "The strangler" or something.--The Dragon Demands (talk) 18:53, November 7, 2014 (UTC) The '''necklace' is an object given to Sansa Stark by Dontos Hollard, whose purpose is to murder Joffrey Baratheon. It is strung with seven amethysts, which are in fact crystals made of a powerful poison, that can be crushed into a fine powder and dissolve in a wine.'' Season 4 Dontos meets Sansa at the godswood and gives her the necklace as a token of gratitude for saving his life, claiming it belonged to his mother and her mother before her. Sansa declines politely, but Dontos beseeches her, and she takes it, saying that she'll wear it with pride. Sansa is unaware that she is used by the conspirators to kill Joffrey."Two Swords" Sansa wears the necklace at Joffrey's wedding. Olenna Tyrell removes the poison from it surreptitiously while pretending to straighten Sansa's hair."The Lion and the Rose" On the ship that takes them away from King's Landing, Littlefinger reveals to Sansa that Dontos' "heirloom" was made at his order a few weeks ago. He takes the necklace from Sansa and crushes one of its gems with his dagger hilt. Then he throws it overboard, and it lands in the boat where Dontos' body lies."Breaker of Chains" Littlefinger tells Sansa that Tyrion was not involved in the murder, but she was. He asks "Do you remember that lovely necklace Dontos gave you? I don't suppose you noticed that a stone was missing after the feast". Only then Sansa understands it contained the poison."Oathkeeper" On Tyrion's trial, Pycelle presents the necklace as an evidence. He testifies that Dontos' body was found, with the necklace Sansa wore at the wedding, and that the necklace contained traces of the poison known as "the strangler"."The Laws of Gods and Men" In the books In the A Song of Ice and Fire novels, it is not a necklace but a hair net. It is described as made of fine-spun silver, its strands are so thin and delicate that the net seems to weigh no more than a breath of air. Small gems are set wherever two strands cross, so dark they drink the moonlight. It is embedded with black amethysts from Asshai, set wherever two strands cross, so dark they drink the moonlight. One of the gems is a poison pellet. In "A Clash of Kings", during one of their occasional meeting at the godswood, Dontos tells Sansa the day for her escape is Joffrey's wedding, and gives her the hair net. Sansa takes it without any declining, commenting "It's very lovely" but muses "It is a ship I need, not a net for my hair". Dontos tells her the hair net is magical, and it will serve as justice and vengeance for her father, and take her home. In "A storm of swords", when Sansa tells Dontos that the Tyrells offered her to be wed to Willas Tyrell, Dontos begs her to forget about that, instructs her to wear the hair net at Joffrey's wedding, and promise that afterward they will escape. Sansa does as Dontos says. During the wedding, Olenna removes the poison from the hair net while pretending to straighten Sansa's hair, similarly to the show. Sansa escapes alone from the wedding hall to the godswood. While she changes clothes, she suddenly notices one of the gems is missing from the hair net. Sansa is filled with horror, realizing the sigificance (but she does not recall what Olenna did until she is reminded later). Hearing footsteps, she quickly stuffs the hair net in her pocket. Dontos appears. Sansa blames him that the hair net was used to murder Joffrey, and he is the one who poisoned him with a gem from the hair net. Dontos denies, claiming that Joffrey choked on his pigeon pie, and the hair net is all "silver and stones and magic". On the way to the ship, Sansa wonders if Tyrion knew about the hair net, and if he poisoned Joffrey. When dining at Littlefinger's home at the Fingers, he reveals to Sansa part of the scheme to murder Joffrey. He explains the part that she played unknowingly, and reminds her what Olenna did. However, Littlefinger does not take the hair net from Sansa, nor does he ask her where it is. The hair net is not mentioned afterwards. It is not found by Pycelle or anyone else. Except the conspirators, no one knows about its importance. It may still be in Sansa's possession. --The Dragon Demands (talk) 18:53, November 7, 2014 (UTC) Please clarify: The old warhorn, for instance, has no importance or significance to the plotline; no one looked at or even mentioned it; it appeared only for a very few seconds - yet it has a wikipedia page of its own. Based on what criterions did you decide that the warhorn should have a separate article, but not the necklace/hair net? Ser Hasty (talk) 16:03, November 13, 2014 (UTC) I'm sorry let me clarify: you know that an article exists, but how would anyone else? You have to think of how it will fit into the regular navigation setup. Like, "books" are a category we made, and "weapons" - but if you just made an article on say, "the candleholder on Tyrion's dinner table"...that wouldn't really fit in anywhere. We really only have two things in the "objects" category that don't fit in any other category; the war horn, and glass candles. They are the exception, not the rule. Moreover...the war horn got its own article because it's a lot more prominent in the books; basically, Mance Rayder claims to have the Horn of Joramun, an ancient magical object which if sounded will make the Wall collapse - but he tells Jon Snow that he's hesitant to use it, because the entire point of fleeing south of the Wall is that it will stop the White Walkers - destroy the Wall to pass it, and the White Walkers will simply follow them. There's this running fan-theory that the old warhorn, however, is the actual Horn of Joramun, and Mance was bluffing about having the real one (or mistaken). Again, exception and not the rule. So Sansa's necklace actually fits better within the article for "The Strangler", as a subsection. A very separate issue is articles on fights, duels, minor skirmishes. That's a question of degree. The brawl between Sandor and Polliver just isn't big enough to count as a historical battle - in a real-life encyclopedia, "The Battle of Hastings" gets an article, individual small fights do not. We do list major trials by combat just because they were very notable events but even that was a stretch. Anyway, were there any other new articles you were planning?--The Dragon Demands (talk) 21:12, November 14, 2014 (UTC) I had several ideas for new articles, but I am discouraged of writing them since I put a lot of work in the Ned vs. Jaime article, and in vain. I am not questioning the reason for the rejection, but I do not have the motivation anymore. About the warhorn: are you sure it can be defined as prominent? I am aware of the theory (I thought about adding it to the article in this wikipedia, but did not because it may be a spoiler), I hope it will come true, but so far it has not been verified. Sam just has it in possession, and has no use for it. Ser Hasty (talk) 09:36, November 15, 2014 (UTC) Don't pout. You *didn't* "put work" into a non-existent Ned and Jaime article. And if you wrote a full-length Ned and Jaime article offline, how can we be blamed for telling you it's not an article we need, after you come on here with a full-length article? Similarly, you are to blame for putting so much effort into an article on "Sansa's necklace", without simply asking "is this the type of article we can have?" etc. Moreover, you've been making quite a few mistakes in the past four weeks (as seen on this talk page)...nothing bad, just unfamiliarity with our policies and standards. Thus...logically, wouldn't you ask us first before making entirely new articles, to confirm if they conform to policies you are unfamiliar with? You need to be more willing to learn about what our standards and formats are.--The Dragon Demands (talk) 15:57, November 15, 2014 (UTC) I am not pouting, I am not complaining, I never blamed you or anyone else for "telling you it's not an article we need" or anything else. I accept constructive criticism like "You need to be more willing to learn about what our standards and formats are", but I do not like being accused so aggressively for things I never said or did. Imagine you spend a lot of time writing down articles, send them to a newspaper, but they are being rejected based on relevant reasons that you agree with. Would you feel discouraged - not because you blame the editor but because the rejections make you think "I spent so much time, but in vain. Maybe I am not good enough? Maybe I should give up?" - accepting the reasons for the rejection and blaming yourself for the quality of your writing. This is how I felt. So far, your posts have been phrased in patient, polite and friendly manner, and I appreciated this a lot. Your suggestion that I ask in advance if a specific topic can be posted is fine. You could have simply written this as response "tell me of your ideas before posting them, and I will let you know if they fit to the standards of the wikipedia", and this whole unpleasantness would have been avoided. Instead you wrote a very fiery response, wrongly accusing me of things I never did or said. Take a look at the posts I added to this page: Did I ever accuse you of acting in arbitrary, unfair or unjust manner as the administrator? No. Did I ever claim you abuse your power as the administrator? No. Did I ever claim your reasons for rejecting my additions were baseless, irrelevant, whimsical or unreasonable? No. All I did, in case the reason for a specific rejection was unclear to me, was to ask for clarifications, and you did - in detailed and clear manner. I never blamed you, not in the above post or any other post, for the work I put in writing the rejected articles. I am the one to blame, like you wrote. I feel discouraged - not because of the rejections, which were based on very good reasons and I took hid of, but because I feel what I write is not good enough. As for the aggressive tone of your post (the first paragraph of your post): if someone deliberately breaches the rules, writes in foul language or otherwise acts inappropriately despite being warned not to - an aggressive message is suitable. I never acted in malicious intent to break the rules (I am not saying you accused me doing that - you did not). My point is that posting the rejected articles was not done with intention to break the rules, and I accepted your explanations - and I did not blame you that my work was in vain. Therefore, with all due respect, I do not think that such harsh tone was necessary. A polite and calm manner would have been sufficient to deliver the message, and would have not left any of us with unpleasant feeling. Ser Hasty (talk) 14:21, November 16, 2014 (UTC) ...my annoyance was based on a confusion you have which I now see is from being unfamiliar with wikis. So let me back up and calmly walk you through this: "Imagine you spend a lot of time writing down articles, send them to a newspaper, but they are being rejected based on relevant reasons that you agree with. Would you feel discouraged - not because you blame the editor but because the rejections make you think "I spent so much time, but in vain. Maybe I am not good enough? Maybe I should give up?" - accepting the reasons for the rejection and blaming yourself for the quality of your writing. This is how I felt." That isn't how Wikis work at all. You don't "send in" finished articles - you don't intend to write full-length articles saved to your computer, then submit them. Preferably, you write them on here, so we can give you pointers. Specifically, this is what you should be doing as a new editor who self-admittedly doesn't know all of the standards and practices for articles. It would take 30 seconds to send a message to an Admin asking "hey, can I make an article on the Ned/Jaime fight?" as a heads-up. As a new editor, this is what you should be doing, seeking out advice. Otherwise you're going to spend a lot of time "in vain" accidentally working on stuff we'd reject. Using the newspaper analogy...imagine if you submitted an Op/Ed column...to a newspaper that doesn't carry Op/Ed columns at all. You're supposed to check if they do, or, write to the editor and ask "would you like to start running Op/Ed columns? I'd like to write one" (perhaps even sending in a sample one, but knowing it might be declined). Using this analogy, you submitted an Op/Ed (instead of objective article) and were surprised that they thought you "weren't good enough" when in fact, you were making a format mistake because they didn't accept that kind of thing, and you didn't ask. How can I blame the quality of your writing when I haven't even seen any Ned/Jaime article you could make? Your writing has nothing to do with it. No matter how good the "necklace" article you wrote is (I didn't even thoroughly read it)...in principle, we're not going to have articles on things like that, anymore than "candlesticks". Quality has nothing to do with it. (And as for the Necklace article I told you; this information would work fine, but as a subsection of the article on "The Strangler"). This is how Wikis work. You don't write long new articles, of a format not used before, and then assume they fit in. You should at least ask first. Yes sometimes even writing on here you might finish a long article in a single night before the rest of us get to proofing it, but in principle, you shouldn't be writing up long new articles saved to your computer and then loading them up finished...when you are unfamiliar with what is acceptable as an entirely new article. You're new and unfamiliar with this, so you should be asking questions first instead of diving in. Also your posts can and will be changed, but it isn't necessarily due to the "Quality" of your edits. This is the nature of Wikis.--The Dragon Demands (talk) 18:17, November 16, 2014 (UTC) Ned vs Jaime I think we decided a while ago that Ned vs Jaime wasn't part of the war and wouldn't be getting its own article.--The Dragon Demands (talk) 19:07, November 7, 2014 (UTC) I had no knowledge of the above decision. Now that I know - I will follow it. Note that I wrote in the beginning of the article that it precedes the war, not part of it. Since I am planning to write an article about the brawl in the tavern between Arya, the Hound and the Lannister soldiers, please inform me if there is a similar decision about that encounter too, or any other reason not to write about it. Ser Hasty (talk) 12:36, November 8, 2014 (UTC) Yeah...we're not having an article on that fight either because AWOIAF doesn't.--The Dragon Demands (talk) 13:23, November 13, 2014 (UTC) Very well, I will not write about it. If I may ask, I do not understand the reason you gave: so what if AWOIAF does not have an article about it? There are many pages on this wikipedia that are not included in AWOIAF, and vice versa. Ser Hasty (talk) 13:59, November 13, 2014 (UTC) Well, more of a trend with AWOIAF - but in general, the battles pages are for battles, not every individual fight in the entire TV series. At a certain point we get diminishing returns and it becomes redundant with the episode/character articles because it's not distinct enough. Tournaments and trials by combat are distinct.--The Dragon Demands (talk) 14:11, November 13, 2014 (UTC) Plural Possessive "S" This is a mistake I was making through late Season 3 so there are too many examples of it on the wiki to easily fix, I just fix them if I'm in the course of another edit. When you make a singular noun possessive, which doesn't end in S, you add apostrophe-S: "Ned's castle". When you make plural nouns possessive, because they're pluralized by ending in S, they do not gain another S, just the apostrophe: "The Lannisters' castle". However, singular nouns which happen to end in S will *still* gain an S: "Stannis's castle", "Daenerys's army", etc. Thus "Ned Flanders's car" but "The Flanders' car" (the car of the entire Flanders family). --The Dragon Demands (talk) 13:23, November 13, 2014 (UTC) Red Wedding No. The "In the books" section is already really long, that stuff should go onto the "Differences between books and TV series - Season 3" page. The "In the books" section on articles themselves is basically meant to be a quick-guide to TV-first viewers, while the "Differences" pages are more for exhaustive lists of differences. --The Dragon Demands (talk) 04:16, November 15, 2014 (UTC) "In the books" In the books sections in general should not list large amounts of information which weren't related to the TV show, i.e. detailed descriptions of Brienne's older siblings who have long since died and aren't even mentioned in the TV series. I was last "up to speed" on the wiki on October 7th. I am working on major projects now. But I will be reviewing additions made in the past six weeks at some point in the near future. --The Dragon Demands (talk) 04:21, November 15, 2014 (UTC) Revert Sorry, but I've had to revert your recent additions to the "Differences between books and TV series - Season 4" page. The existing paragraph already contained the relevant information, which is that A: Petyr helps Sansa with building the snow castle, and B: Sansa tears Robin's doll, causing him to have a seizure. These pages are not intended to be blow-by-blow breakdowns of everything that happens in the books, complete with dialogue.--Ser Patrek, the Wolfskinner 14:55, November 17, 2014 (UTC) Telltale If you're looking for something constructive to do, I desperately need help setting up pages relating to the Telltale game. Let me know if you're interested.--Ser Patrek, the Wolfskinner 14:04, November 24, 2014 (UTC) I appreciate the offer, but could you be more specific: do you mean fixing errors (like the sentence "there is no "House Forrester" in the novels") or more creative work? Ser Hasty (talk) 06:06, November 25, 2014 (UTC) : Everything and anything you can contribute would be greatly appreciated, but yes content creation is especially needed right now. Just look for red links on House Forrester related articles.--Ser Patrek, the Wolfskinner 12:58, November 25, 2014 (UTC) :: Interested? Sorry to be blunt, but this would be a lot more helpful than just adding trivia to notes pages.--Ser Patrek, the Wolfskinner 13:16, November 26, 2014 (UTC) ::: With all due respect, being an administrator does not exempt you of the rules of manners and courtesy. ::: The reason I delayed my answer to your offer - and I innocently thought I did not have to answer right away - is because I wanted to consider what and how I could contribute to the new section of the Telltale game. In the meantime, I made one correction to the page "Game of Thrones: A Telltale Games Series" - as you specifically had requested, to show you I was interested. However... ::: Stannis's blunt sentence to Catelyn "your son no less a traitor than my brother here" ruined any chance for an alliance between Stannis and Robb, if there was any. Your post had similar effect: it made me lose any interest in your offer. Therefore I decline. ::: I think it would be best not to continue this thread. Any further posting will just cause more unpleasantness. There is no point to be upset of such matter. I suggest that we put the whole thing behind. If you wish to delete this thread, I have no objection. ::: Ser Hasty (talk) 06:06, November 27, 2014 (UTC) :::: You're being overly sensitive. Let's be frank about this: The Wiki is facing a massive influx of new editors and content, for which we are drastically unprepared... it's as if HBO had just released a press statement saying that Season 5 will be released four months early. The sort of chaos that we normally only experience during the on season... we're going to have that in the next few weeks. We're under an immense amount of pressure, and by your own admission, you're not interested in actually helping the community, and would rather continue making trivial posts that, more often than not, are incorrect, full of speculation and conjecture, and need to be reverted. I have attempted to steer you in the right direction by showing you things you could being doing that would be genuinely constructive and helpful... and you "decline"? My last message was not rude or discourteous, but being an administrator does involve a supervisory element, and that requires telling people when they're going wrong, and trying to help them improve. So far you've demonstrated a marked inability to take advice on board, as demonstrated by that fact that you're making the same mistakes over and over, which is why I decided to try encouraging you to do something different. Anyway, I apologize if you misinterpret the tone of my last message - you need to understand that nothing is personal here, myself and the Dragon are just trying to help you, and becoming upset the way you are isn't called for. There is no "unpleasantness" as you keep calling it. Anyway, I'm not going to tell you what areas of the wiki you can and can't work on. Some would, but I won't. The offer is still on the table, and will remain there. If you're not interested, that's fine... I guess, but you will have to improve in your other areas of editing, or we'll have to take action.--Ser Patrek, the Wolfskinner 12:28, November 27, 2014 (UTC) I will be succinct: Ser Hasty has shown a large unwillingness to learn how to match our wiki formats or work standards. Instead you're just posting long, obscure comparisons to how things happened in the books. Yes we make comparisons too, but you're going into far more detail than you need to and just splitting hairs. We have tried to help you. Now you're a drain an limited resources. Taking the time to painstakingly walk you through wiki tasks is dividing our attention from other matters. Moreover, other new editors quickly learned things you are having trouble learning - we didn't need to waste such time on them. You also seem shocked at the basic wiki concept that your work can and will be edited by other people. We are trying to explain the rules to you, a teacher correcting a student has nothing to do with the "rules of manners and courtesy". This is not "unpleasantness", you are being obstinate. You have distracted us from other tasks. If you continue to challenge the Admins you will be given a temporary warning ban, though I hope it doesn't come to that. We were all very busy throughout October and we've spent November catching up. This was oversight we should have gotten to a while ago.--The Dragon Demands (talk) 20:40, November 27, 2014 (UTC) Hey man.. So I was looking over some stuff and I noticed something. I'm not sure why only over then the person that wrote it didn't read the last book? But on Aegon targaryen character profile to shows him to be deceased? He was prosumed to be dead untill the last book where he a character and he with Terion and has a army.. And is looking for Danaerys to ask for her to marry him... It look a big part of that book.. I think you should address the administrators with the above question. Ser Hasty (talk) 06:04, December 1, 2014 (UTC) In the books Due to the third-person narrative of the books it is not necessary to document every single conversation that is slightly different in the show. For example, we never have a chapter that is told from Tywin or Oberyn's perspective, so we can't really say that they "never converse in the books". On the other hand, the detail that you correctly picked up on is Tywin's offer to arrange a meeting between Oberyn and Gregor, which we know from the books he actively tried to avoid doing. Conversely, the Battle of Castle Black is told from Jon's perspective, so it's inaccurate to say that Pyp and Sam's conversation didn't take place - it may well have, for all we know, but we never get the opportunity to find out so it's not really a "difference", per say. In short, please try and exercise your best judgement in this matter. The "in the books" sections will become far too exhaustive if you continue to list every minor dialogue adaptation.--Ser Patrek, the Wolfskinner 16:20, December 1, 2014 (UTC)